> Astronomers' current models of the evolution of binary systems cannot fully explain how the peculiar configuration of the Gaia BH1 system came about, because the original star that later became this black hole should have been at least 20 times more massive than our Sun. This means that it would have lived only a few million years. If both stars formed at the same time, this massive star would have rapidly become a supergiant, inflating and engulfing the other star before it had time to become a proper main-sequence star, burning hydrogen just like our own Sun.
> It's not entirely clear how the solar-mass star survived that episode, ending up an apparently normal star, as observations indicate. All theoretical models that allow for this survival predict that the solar-mass star should be in a much tighter orbit than is actually observed.
Should this last sentence actually read: "All theoretical models that allow for this survival predict that the solar-mass star should be in a much wider orbit than is actually observed."?
> It's not entirely clear how the solar-mass star survived that episode, ending up an apparently normal star, as observations indicate. All theoretical models that allow for this survival predict that the solar-mass star should be in a much tighter orbit than is actually observed.
Should this last sentence actually read: "All theoretical models that allow for this survival predict that the solar-mass star should be in a much wider orbit than is actually observed."?